The Rachael Gunn "Raygun" Olympic Breakdancing Debacle
22 August 2022
The Olympics are for the elite of the elites. There is no debating that fact. We all have an understanding that the Olympics is no place for mediocrity. We watch the Olympics with awe, seeing the best of the best from around the world perform with such refined skills and grace, having endured years of training and sacrifice for their moment on the world stage at the Olympics. We only expect to see the best. So, how did Rachael Gunn aka "Raygun" got qualified to compete in the Paris 2024 Olympics? How did Australia become a laughing stock of the world?
The adverse reactions of many Australians are reasonably expected and rightly founded. With so many talents in Australia, how did we end up having someone representing Australia who was clearly not qualified to compete in breakdancing at the Olympics?
The zero points Raygun received by the judges in all her performances speak volumes and require no further justification that Raygun should not have been competing at the Olympics. Imagine a gymnast or ice skater in competition not doing the required techniques/routines to get points, and stating that they had trained hard. Obtaining zero points in all performances at the Olympics is, in itself, very hard to believe. Yet, Raygun showed us it can be done.
The issue is not Raygun breakdancing, she can dance and teach breakdancing as much as she wants. What is of concern is the fact that she was clearly not qualified to compete in the Olympics and was subpar to the level of her fellow breakdancing competitors.
What we are, perhaps, witnessing is a reflection of an underlying issue in Australia, where a person of privilege uses their position to engage in unethical and corrupt conduct to create an arbitrary process to promote one's own interest with complete disregard of any fair due process for others to qualify. This is an example of what happens when there is no transparency, no regulation, and lack of checks and balances.
Raygun had apparently formed her own committee placing her husband as one of the judges for her qualifiers.
Unfortunately, Raygun's conduct of exploiting her privilege to obtain unethical personal gains is not uncommon in Australia. Many talented Australians, especially those of colour and/or who are disadvantaged/marginalised often lose out on opportunities due to unethical and corrupt conduct.
We should always strive to let the best shine for Australia, no matter what age, colour or race, where all are given the opportunity to qualify to compete and show case their skills and talents.
Many has alleged that Raygun has taken the opportunity from deserving young women in competing at the Olympics in breakdancing, which is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, where it is not the usual category in the Olympics.
When conduct like this happens it should not be tolerated and accepted as a norm. The voice of Australians is resounding and shows that such conduct is unacceptable.
To ensure that such conduct does not happen again, speaking up and calling for action is required. What you do not protest against, you give consent to.
Raygun's situation is akin to impersonating an Olympic level breakdancer, some would argue she is an imposter. Raygun created her own committee and had her husband as one of the judges for her qualifiers. Effectively, Raygun had qualified herself to be an Olympic level breakdancer, where no other female breakdancers had a chance to qualify.
In a legal context, a person impersonating a professional qualified person such as a legal practitioner is a very serious matter capable of constituting a criminal offence.
OBL principal Ms Odtojan has dealt with matters of unqualified persons impersonating legal practitioners in court proceedings. In 2016, Piper Alderman employees paralegal Ms Natalie Miller (Ms Miller) and law clerk Mr Owen Nanlohy (Mr Nanlohy), had impersonated a solicitor and a barrister at the court hearings, sitting at the bar table misleading the court that they were a solicitor/counsel.
Barrister Mr Sebastian Hartford Davis, who is a PhD (Oxford University), referred to Ms Miller as his instructing solicitor/solicitor in court proceedings including at the final hearing in 2016. Mr Hartford Davis did not have to mislead the court, but he demonstrated that he wilfully wanted to and he even directed Ms Miller to touch/tamper with evidence and hand it up to court. Ms Miller touched/tampered with evidence and tendered documents as evidence/exhibit before Magistrate Sharon Freund in the Local Court hearing (evidenced in court transcript).
Ms Odtojan had reported Ms Miller and Mr Nanlohy including the conduct of Mr Hartford Davis to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) and Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the Law Society of the NSW. Ms Miller (now a solicitor of Piper Alderman, Sydney) and Mr Nanlohy (now a barrister in Victoria) had both misled the Legal Profession Admissions Board when they started their legal careers.
Mr Hartford Davis Barrister at Banco Chambers Sydney, had signed a Notice to Produce dated 17 December 2015 by consent with Barrister Mr Nicholas Silva of Arthur Phillip Chambers, which was handed up in court on 17 December 2015 and was made a court order for the production of the credit contract amongst other documents/particulars. Ms Hartford Davis opposing counsel of Mr Ford as the Local Court proceedings (Odtojan ats Credit Corp) was aware that Mr Ford made false and misleading statements to the court that contract documents were provided to his client on 12 January 2015 where there were no such evidence, and where Mr Hartford Davis himself signed notice to produce on 17 December 2015 where contract is yet to be produced as he had agreed and signed by consent.
This Notices to Produce/Court order remains non-compliant for 9 years on-going by Credit Corp and its lawyers, Mr Hartford Davis, Piper Alderman Lawyers Partners (Mr Florian Ammer / Ms Anne Freeman), Mr Matthew Mennilli (on all occasions agreed in court). This is an ongoing contempt of court for nine years by the said parties.
For more information of the reports made by Ms Odtojan from 2016 to date, for the protection of the integrity of the courts and legal profession, and the public, see the Public notice.
Relevant legislation:
section 10 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 NSW (LPUL) 'Prohibition of engaging in legal practice by unqualified entities'.
The Law Society website also provides the penalties for an unqualified practitioner:
The maximum penalty for engaging in unqualified legal practice is a fine of 250 penalty units [$27,500 on 1 July 2015] or imprisonment for 2 years or both.
The maximum penalty for an entity that holds itself out as entitled to engage in legal practice is 250 penalty units.
Note: PhD has a code of conduct to act ethically in their interactions and endeavours.
Related video see: https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS2jbDjAV/
Disclaimer: The information is subject to change where any corrections, amendments or additional information may be required. Contact: oblawyers.media@gmail.com
Comments